English Law:-• Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Acti. An offence of common assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.ii. An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful forceiii. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another

'Reasonable Force'A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:• self-defence; or• defence of another; or• defence of property; or• prevention of crime; or• lawful arrest.

“ I felt in fear of my safety, and had to strike my aggressor 1st as I believed I was about to be attacked”

Mark

Mark,

All of your quote is perfectly correct but, unfortunately for those of the forgoing pre-emptive striking persuasion there is the small matter of witnesses, CCTV recordings, cameras in mobile phones, micro digital cameras etc, etc.

Its all very well and good saying "I felt in fear of my safety, and had to strike my aggressor 1st as I believed I was about to be attacked", video recordings from CCTV are silent, mobile phones are notorious for not picking up dialogue when in video mode and witnesses are not predisposed to support the person who struck first. Your assertion might have had some credence in times gone by, but the weight of evidence in this day and age is somewhat more than ever going to be stacked against you.

I personally would ALWAYS be (and have been successful being) a witness for the prosecution when this type of altercation has ensued. It tends to lend extra credence to my testimony when I am asked if I know anything about MA, and I can reply "Yes I have over 30 years experience". I couldn't care less if one of the protagonists is a martial artist or not, or even if they both are. The person who strikes the first blow is in my opinion beneath contempt, yes I know you are accurate in your quote of UK law, but it makes no difference to my view of the matter.

Also someone mentioned the subject of "personal space". No such thing exists, it is an abstract concept, nobody owns the space surrounding them. The Brits are notorious at being standoffish whilst the Latin cultures are known to accept and even encourage a greater closeness in communications between individuals. So what are you intending to do, whack an Italian or Spaniard just because they get too close in your comfort zone? How do you feel about a Portuguese? The reason I ask is that I have some friends from those countries and in the normal course of conversation they tend to get very close and animated, which could easily lead to mistakes being made. If someone is unknowing about these facts costly mistakes can be made, particularly if you do not speak their language or understand the accent.

Please don't quote the old "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" routine. Its so old its got whiskers on. Oh, I just might be one of the 12!!!

Quote:The person who strikes the first blow is in my opinion beneath contempt, yes I know you are accurate in your quote of UK law, but it makes no difference to my view of the matter.

Just wondering if your view would still be the same if it was your 15 yr old daughter fighting of the "nice boy" who now expects something in return for the movie he just paid for.

If you have an honest belief that you are in danger you have every legal and moral right to strike preemptively. If you have an honest belief and this is a genuine self-defence situation, then camera phones, cctv etc will show that and your lawyer will use it to prove the case of self defence. if you have genuinely tried to de-escalate and or avoid violence then that will be evident in the footage.

Of course if it's not a Genuine self defence situation then maybe you should worry.

I am so sick of hearing Self-defence being tossed around when in all reality most pup oriented violence occurs due to ego not the need to protect yourself or another from harm.

How do you know someone asked, you just do if you are not feeling in danger then you have no honest belief that you need to act pre-emptively.

Pub fights and street fights are not self defence they are ego based not safety based. I'm not saying that genuine self defence situation's don't occur in these settings, of course they do, but most pub situations are avoidable. The vast majority that comes to blows is because of the ego. ( this is based on my own experiences and observations on the door and experiences and research of others who's material I have studied.)

If some drunk is in my face being abusive to me or my wife, I am not going to risk injury by waiting for them to throw the 1st punch. Mishael is spot on - you have a guard or fence, and if it is touched or broken, then I call that justification for a pre-emptive strike.

This is almost going down the 'human rights' argument. If people are going to throw their weight around and start picking on others for no reason, they lose that right. It is because no one stands up to them that they continue doing what they do until some innocent gets really hurt.

“I personally would ALWAYS be (and have been successful being) a witness for the prosecution when this type of altercation has ensued.”

Bit shocked about that, even if the pre-emptive strike was totally justified?

Sorry Mate, Personal space does exist in legal terminology

Public Order Act 1986

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

That coupled with the afore mentioned definition of assault and numerous case law clearly indicates it could be an offence.

You are so right about other cultures, LOL us standoffish English being greeted by Greek, Spanish , Italian friends, seen it so many times. As you say, misunderstanding VERY often occur.

Not sure why you think I would “whack” a friend from the med or middle east, just for greeting me…. I have worked in a multicultural environment for decades, not happened yet. I actually taught a group in October that was 50% Portuguese………We didn’t mention Football once….

I would imagine that you have limited experience in the real world of violence ( and a every good thing that is!!)

As you indicate, I do so wish that I never have a person with your views on a jury…

If some drunk guy is in MY face being abusive to me or my wife, I’d have a talk with him and/or simply LEAVE the scene.

The question is, “where” are you when you’re confronted by a drunk guy? The second question might be, “why” are you there? Self-defense is not being “there” in the first place and then leaving as soon as trouble starts brewing. But that is just common sense.

Think about it folks, how many different things can you do in this situation BEFORE things get violent? In a bar? Get the attention of a bouncer. On the street? Go into a public place and/or call the cops from there.

Has anyone ever heard of running away? Ever seen really drunk guys run? They generally don’t chase you very far before they decide it’s a lot easier to just go have another drink. Either that or they "face plant" into the asphalt.

It’s just amazing that so many here seem to be so paranoid and full of bravado.

If it is your JOB to keep order, we’re talking about different dynamics at work. If you’re a “civilian”, just go home, lol. You have NOTHING to gain from reacting violently. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. But if you keep in mind the triple stupid rule (don’t do stupid things, with stupid people in stupid places) you should fare pretty well.

Of course, some folks are naturally going to have a hard time not being stupid. That’s why God “invented” natural selection.

NewJitsu wrote:

Quote:

Mishael is spot on - you have a guard or fence, and if it is touched or broken, then I call that justification for a pre-emptive strike.

If someone lays hands on you, sure, jack ‘em up. THEN bolt.

Quote:

This is almost going down the 'human rights' argument. If people are going to throw their weight around and start picking on others for no reason, they lose that right. It is because no one stands up to them that they continue doing what they do until some innocent gets really hurt.

Yeah, but what often happens is that when someone stands up to them, they get shot for their efforts. I can’t tell you HOW many times I’ve read about arguments between folks turning into murder charges. No reason to up the stakes if you could just leave the scene.

Quote:The person who strikes the first blow is in my opinion beneath contempt, yes I know you are accurate in your quote of UK law, but it makes no difference to my view of the matter.

Just wondering if your view would still be the same if it was your 15 yr old daughter fighting of the "nice boy" who now expects something in return for the movie he just paid for.

If you have an honest belief and this is a genuine self-defence situation, then camera phones, CCTV etc will show that and your lawyer will use it to prove the case of self defence. if you have genuinely tried to de-escalate and or avoid violence then that will be evident in the footage.

Well, I don't have a 15 year old daughter. My youngest daughter is 26.

Photographic and video evidence rarely proves innocence, as what is normally seen by a magistrate or jury is two people having an argument which is then escalated into physical violence by the person who throws the first strike. This is why photographic and video evidence is in the majority of instances submitted by the prosecution and not by the defense. This is highlighted by the fact that video evidence has been used in a number of high profile case where police officers have 'overstepped the mark', in order to secure a conviction.

“I personally would ALWAYS be (and have been successful being) a witness for the prosecution when this type of altercation has ensued.”

Bit shocked about that, even if the pre-emptive strike was totally justified?

Sorry Mate, Personal space does exist in legal terminology

Public Order Act 1986

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

That coupled with the afore mentioned definition of assault and numerous case law clearly indicates it could be an offence.

You are so right about other cultures, LOL us standoffish English being greeted by Greek, Spanish , Italian friends, seen it so many times. As you say, misunderstanding VERY often occur.

Not sure why you think I would “whack” a friend from the med or middle east, just for greeting me…. I have worked in a multicultural environment for decades, not happened yet. I actually taught a group in October that was 50% Portuguese………We didn’t mention Football once….

I would imagine that you have limited experience in the real world of violence ( and a every good thing that is!!)

As you indicate, I do so wish that I never have a person with your views on a jury…

Regards

Mark

Mark.

I wasn't suggesting that you would 'whack' your continental friends. Merely pointing out that a person unfamiliar with their culture could easily mistake their behaviour as being aggressive and threatening when in fact it is not. It is merely a cultural 'difference', but that difference could cause a person unfamiliar with it and of a pre-emptive disposition to 'shoot first and ask questions later'.

Quote: Yeah, but what often happens is that when someone stands up to them, they get shot for their efforts. I can’t tell you HOW many times I’ve read about arguments between folks turning into murder charges. No reason to up the stakes if you could just leave the scene.

-John

Fair enough. I live in a rural part of the UK, so guns aren't an issue. OK, so you never know, but assuming everyone's carrying a shooter would see me living the life of a hermit.

But yes I completely agree that self defence is not getting into violent confrontations in the first place. I'm very selective of where I go out drinking nowadays (growing up...), as it's just common sense not to go to the dodgy bars.

I'm interested to know when you would advocate physical self defence then? Are you saying never? Are you saying there is always a non violent way out? That's something I used to believe until some drunk 18-stone nutter came up to me in a club asking if I was "looking at my bird".

I must confess that I mostly speak from work related situation, where you can’t walk away (well with certain exceptions) sorry for the narrow minded view

You are so right in your comment “Has anyone ever heard of running away?It’s a hard thing to do, but to use another aphorism “discretion is the better part of valour”

One British definition of the use of force is:- the minimum force required to ensure the return of a safe situation” So given a situation, was running/walking away enough to ensure a safe situation? If so, then violence would not be justified. (Provided one was able to get away)

Midnightcrawler, absolutely agree, seen it loads of times, both parties in the full belief that they have been slighted by the other.

I haven't be involved in any violence, not either work related or when I was on the recieving end of an attempted mugging, in about 20 years, more or less. I can't imagine that a person could provoke me into violence, with anything less than an immidiate threat to myself and/or my family.

that said - once I have satisfied myself that violence is going to happen, I am going to do what ever it takes for that violence to end up with me standing and the other side not standing. being as I am a short fat old man, I am assuming that any such conflict will involve a pre-emptive strike from me.

if somebody is obviously working towards attacking me, I wont think trice about hitting him first. that is jsut common sense.